Sociology of Education: Major Theories and Their Connection to School Practice (Froehlich, Chapter 6)

27 Replies to “Sociology of Education: Major Theories and Their Connection to School Practice (Froehlich, Chapter 6)”

1. While reading chapter 6, I became entirely too excited when I recognized the names of John Dewey and Lev Vygotsky who are both listed under the Constructionist in Education paragraph on page 90. I have been very fortunate to be able study their theories in education classes during my undergraduate career. Their studies have been one of the main focuses in our district, which is to create more hands on experiences for our students through activities and technology resources.

   Many of our district’s professional development has been centered around the constructionist view such as Dave Burgess’s “Teach Like a Pirate” session where his main point is that by being creative in how teachers present material we are able to create a real life experience that will forever be engrained in their memory. These experiences boost student engagement therefore boosting comprehension. In Burgess presentation, he showed us different out of the box ways that we could catch their attention using hands on activities and ideas to connect their interests to the subject being taught. Though Burgess program was mainly geared toward general education, I highly believe that some of the theories presented are things that we as music educators already do in the classroom.

   Musicking is a prime example. Students by nature have to be engaged at some level when musiciking because they are physically creating music, they are “doing” music. I have found in my classroom that when students are able to move around the room while singing, they are even more alert to what is going on in the classroom because of the added element. In my 2nd grades we have sang a plethora of circle songs where students take turns leading a song and doing the movements. Of all the activities we do these seem to be the ones they are always asking to perform.

   Music literacy games are another example of “doing”, there are a plethora of games that have students racing each other to answer first such as a music relay where students are given an obstacle course of music questions with a physical element such as moving a plate on a staff to zig zaging to get to the next obstacle. My classes have also played a musical chairs type game using dynamics. Each student receives a card with a written dynamic and whenever their dynamic is called they must race to an empty seat. The person that is left standing is out. We have added to the game to include a “dynamic disaster” where all students must penguin walk to an empty chair without being the last one standing.

   As a result of constructionism, has been a powerful tool I have used to solidify previously learned concepts. By creating hands on experiences for my students they have been able to help each other in explaining and defining musical concepts. It is with this type of encouragement from their peers that creates an open learning environment. I am also able to quickly assess comprehension and determine what concepts I may need to reteach.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Ashley,

      I will have to look more into Dave Burgess and his teaching styles. The way you describe it sounds very interesting! There are often times that I wish I could create more “real life” connections for my band students. When teaching music students almost everything we teach is applicable to a skill (playing/singing music), but can we connect more to their everyday world or to their future world? I would like to learn more tricks to connecting to the students in this way. As far as students doing something while learning music is a great concept. For myself, who teaches middle school and high school band, I should look into finding more ways to incorporate these concepts elementary music teachers use in their classroom. I would like to find more ways to engage my students in learning specific skills while also not letting them feel like they are back in elementary school. Maybe I will begin thinking outside the box next time I have a new concept to teach my students. Maybe I will get them moving around the room and get them active in the classroom. I remember doing some of this in high school and feeling silly for a moment but then understanding the concept much faster than I would have otherwise.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   2. Ashley,

      Your examples of constructionism were a great share. I love looking into the classroom of other teachers and seeing the different ways of teaching. Although your teaching is to elementary music, I’d like to create that real life experiences that will be with the students forever. I hope that some of the performances we do will stick with the students, but if I can get some of my experiences in the classroom to stick with them forever, that would be very special – and is why I remember some of my elementary/Jr. High teachers still to this day!

      LikeLike

      Reply

2. Functionalists “maintain that school learning is the most efficient form of controlling and streamlining what societal values and accepted behaviors are being learned.” (pg. 80) Some of the pros of functionalism theory would be that it exposes all students to values and behaviors regardless of their experience at home. The con to this pro would be that some parents use this as an excuse not to parent at home or they may not agree with the values and behaviors. Also, all school settings are different. At smaller schools, it would be easier to convey these values in depth and monitor behaviors but at a larger school with more students per teacher, the individual attention is limited and this can lead to students who don’t fit on the track provided and aren’t able to get the help to correct. For many reasons this is a dangerous scenario.

   Conflict “gives greater credence to the power of learning in context, stressing that skills and knowledge should be learned when a learner needs them, not then the curriculum mandates it.” While, yes, this does empower students by conveying the value of what is being learned it is almost impossible. Schooling on such a massive scale does not lend its self to this style of education. Also, this is not how the real world works. Part of the value in schooling is learning to cope and develop intrinsic motivation. I do not disagree with the value of the theory, just the implementation on a large scale.

   Interaction, as a combination of conflict and functional theory, is what I think closely aligns with the educational experiences I have had and am currently involved in. With some structure and the ability to excel at your own pace. This theory is still accountable to the pros and cons on the previous but at a less severe and more manageable basis.

   What do you think? Does school size impact the theory available or that would be successful? In your perfect school, what would you use?

   Froelich explains that a student may feel devalued when the music taught at school does not align with the music they value at home. This could lead to poor or negative behavior. Personally, I have never thought of or noticed a student feeling devalued because of this but I understand the perspective. This may drift into other parts of the chapter but a situation where I am more likely to see self-devaluing would be in relation to work ethic. While this isn’t the case for all students, many learn their work and practice ethic from home. I have students who push them selves very hard with the support of their parents and commit a lot of time to practicing and participating in extra music activities. When other students compare themselves to the success of their peer, without seeing all of the work they put in, they either chalk it up to natural talent or as an unattainable reality. A few of the solutions that I have found are to ask these students to share with the class their routines, or as many see them, their secrets. I also encourage them to grab their friends in the ensemble and ask them to play in a duet or a trio. Sharing their habits and allowing for others to see that things don’t just start out perfect.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Jamee,

      I particularly enjoy your opinion over Conflict Theory. I completely agree. In addition I think it would have to be a very small school for the process to work successfully. I think conflict theory would work very well in the home school setting. Without the constructs of standardized tests and expectations set in place by school administration. The home school setting allows for students to learn skills and subject matter when they are ready for it instead of when everyone else moves on to it.

      I do believe the school size has a large impact on the theory that needs to be used for the school to be most successful. It seems as though if the school is larger it must be more regimented and closer to the Fundamentalist Theory. As the school gets smaller, the school CAN lean more and more towards Conflict Theory if they wish. I still believe a mix would be best but a smaller school has the freedom to incorporate more from the conflict theory than a large school does.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   2. Hi Jamee!

      Nice question. As a person who has attended a rural school all my life and now teaches at what I would consider a big school. I can see where size does in fact affect these theories. In a music perspective, at a rural school you will see students learning in a more conflict theory environment. If students do not understand intervals, rhythm, or so on, it is very easy for the teacher to recognize which student it is and steer them in the right direction. In high school, it was quite normal for our teacher to call us out on problem areas or demonstrate a vocal technique. Fortunately, she always did it in a way that would not embarrass us and always had a positive spin or joke with it. With that being said because many of us where not extremely focused in music, we did not get as many chances to experience music outside of school choir nor understand what it meant to be able to perform anything other than SAB or SA music. Looking back I was jealous after I learned what all I was missing out on after being in honor choirs such as Oklahoma Summer Arts Institute and All-State. In that regard, I do not believe I would have known it even existed if it had not been for the honor choirs.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   3. Hey, Jamee!

      I think school and community size would play a major role in determining which theory could be incorporated most successfully. Like you, I agree that conflict would best be suited for the smaller school situation. I fear if conflict theory were to be utilized in a large school situation, administrators, teachers, staff, and students would face many unnecessary challenges due to the fact that students learn at different paces and in different ways. Some students may get left out and/or forgotten. The students that might move at a slower pace than the majority of the class may never learn the skills they require. In this particular situation, I think there would be much conflict.

      In my perfect school and/or situation, I believe the interactionist theory would be the best path for success. As I mentioned in my post, I think the interactionist theory allows for more individual learning. That is to say, that more attention is given to each individual’s needs and learning preferences. To me, this is the recipe for successful education. Yes, this may be more time and work intensive, but I believe the product is far greater in the long run. Fewer students get lost in the cracks and/or left behind.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   4. Jamee,

      I enjoyed your responses. Your pros towards Functionalism is what I hope for many of our students in our district. Exposing students to the values and experiences regardless to what they have at home. Many of my students don’t have much of a home life let alone get the skills of discipline, self-efficacy, respect, etc.

      Your argument about Conflict theory echoes what I kept thinking while reading. “This is not how the real world works” – I kept thinking this over and over while thinking, sure, this would be great for the students to get a deeper understanding if they worked at their own pace, but deadlines exist in the real world!

      LikeLike

      Reply

3. Functionalist Theory

   “Functionalists maintain that school learning is the most efficient form of controlling and streamlining what societal values and accepted behaviors are being learned” (p. 80). Durkheim, the functionalist theorist, believed that “the school, the community, society at large, and its institutions have to function together to be effective” (p. 80). Within functionalists’ theories of sociology, it seems that there are very strict boundaries that define different groups. In the world of education, these groups might include: the students, the teachers, the administrators, and the parents/community. It is through the observation of these groups that researchers are able to collect data, which could be used to propose and needed/required change.

   Functionalist theory seems to be extremely rigid—almost black and white. There seems to be little room for gray area. This could be a pro and con. As a pro, researchers have specific guidelines, expectations, and definitions with which to work. As a con, the rigidity of only looking at group relationships might hinder researchers in their work to find answers/solutions. Can they think outside the box?

   Conflict Theory

   “Conflict theorists give greater credence to the power of learning in context, stressing that skills and knowledge should be learned when a learner needs them, not when the curriculum mandates it” (p. 80). As the text states, conflict theory suggests that there is “a tension in society and its parts created by the competing interests of individuals and groups” (p. 82). In the text, Froehlich describes the main concern that conflict theorists have about the educational system of today is the unwillingness of the “haves” to bring about fundamental change to the schooling system itself.

   From my understanding of conflict theory in education, conflict theorists believe that change can only be brought about when the tension reaches an unbearable point and changes to the system have to be made to alleviate that tension. This thought process reminds of our political process in the United States. In our democracy there seems to be this pendulum that swings back and forth. When we start to swing too far in one direction, the pendulum will swing back. I feel like conflict theory in education works the same way…. After all, education policies tend to change with the political winds. Maybe I am way off point here, but that’s what came to mind while reading this portion of the chapter….

   Interactionist Theory

   “Interactionists take a position that actually combines the first two viewpoints by arguing that the greatest degree of school efficiency is reached when each learner is given the opportunity to learn at his or her own pace” (p. 80).

   The interactionist theory, I believe, is the one with which I most identify and understand. It is in the interactionist theory where the individual holds the main focus—not the group or groups. Everyone is different. Everyone comes from different backgrounds that shape who we are as individuals. Because we are all unique, we all learn in different ways. I appreciate how the interactionist theory places more emphasis on the individual’s needs—not the group’s.

   LikeLike

   Reply

4. Sociology of education theories target the tension I feel about working in the public sector of the field. I’m encouraged by both the fact that Froehlich considers this extra-musical area worth exploring, and also by the theories she presents. The questions of where education falls in culture, where it should fall, and its connections to society are worthy of contemplating—and have been since the onset of a compulsory education system.

   Based on previous study, experience in the field, and going through this chapter, my impression of the education system in the United States is bi-polar at best. I work within the structure thereby supporting its existence, but not without considering its deficiencies. Is this an interactionist outlook? The education system of the United States was, at its onset, the pride of the world. Our system was the liberal democracy’s answer to rising progressive ethos. A Marxist dream: free and public education for ALL—a socialist concept supported by critical theory’s emphasis on attention for marginalized groups. But in practice the societal implications of compulsory public education has played out in opposition to the operational society that critical theorists envision. In practice the education system relies on individuals’ submission to “prescribed and static expectations of behavior.” Our education system seems to be supported by functionalist characteristics and critical theory would assert that this structure imposes itself on society as a means of perpetuating itself.

   Of interest to me outside of this discourse were Parsons’s terms of ascribed and achieved social status. I wonder what role the education system has on maintaining, undermining, or furthering an individual’s social status. Functionalist theories and the Coleman reports might point to research indicating that this level of socialization might function parallel and independently to schooling. I’ve heard an informal account about Montessori not knowing how to include the early adolescent years into his system so his answer was to “put them on a farm.” His learning theories are predicated on a decidedly non-functionalist platform, but it’s interesting that both Coleman’s reports and Montessori’s philosophies point to early adolescent years as a social structure that has a life of its own.

   I also notice the concept of “hidden curriculum” when I consider the demographics of those who freely answer and discuss in classroom learning. In the week since reading this chapter, and writing this response, I’ve noticed examples of what I imagine to be hidden curriculum lessons in my classroom, but my only exposure to the terminology is through this reading. Is the learning curve that new students face as they enter my classroom evidence of hidden curriculum? Does my affirmation of responses phrased in ways that I’ve prescribed evidence of it? Are my groupwork assignments perpetuating groupings that will achieve and groupings that will fail? I can see evidence of what I value and devalue in my language—what is being picked up?

   This week I found myself chastising a kindergartener that was speaking out loud during a video clip—albeit excitedly and on task. He is developmentally still in a stage where his processing is overt. My insistence on silence was certainly for the sake of learners around him and for musicality but it did not serve this child to be made to feel badly. It made me wonder about the Bourdieu and Passeron view that “all pedagogic action is, objectively, symbolic violence insofar as it is the imposition of a cultural arbitrary by an arbitrary power.“

   Constructivism is a sound learning theory. The constructivism of Piaget and Vygotsky give us a curricular springboard because music teachers are to create a learning situation of relevance and meaning to the student’s existent cognitions and philosophical paradigms. Music education operates on schema connecting. It is interesting to see constructivism (constructionism) as a sociological theory as well. I had not fully considered its implications in the context of a relativistic social construction, even though the term “social construct” is something I’m likely to throw around all the time.

   I feel particularly compelled by acknowledgement that the critical and interactionist theories are primarily university-contingent concepts. School practitioners are by necessity functionalists. Through the juxtaposition of ideas though, critical concepts are exchanged and thoughtful educators at all levels may emerge.

   LikeLike

   Reply

5. Functionalism:
   Highlights of functionalism include how the different groups (school,community, and society) interact with each other within the framework of a specific learning institution. In this framework the students are learners, the teachers are instructors, and the administrators are supervisors. All have clean cut guidelines of how they function within the system. Which is very much a positive, in the perfect world of teaching. This framework is both stable and predictable and very much the foundation of the Educational system. But in reality these roles play out differently whenever various factors are taken into consideration. Students learn differently depending on location, socioeconomics, and support from home . The make up of students then guides the teachers on how to instruct which leads to how the administrators can best support the needs of each unique school. The education system is much more complex than defined actions of student, teacher, and administrator.

   Conflict:
   In this theory it states that it gives more power of learning in context to the students and that they learn when they need it, not whenever it is part of curriculum map. I am all for student choice, engagement, and interests, but as far as a large scale educational view, it would be difficult to center every single concept around when it was needed for a classroom full of diverse learners. Emerging learning models like Project Based Learning (PBL) and Guided Inquiry are all wonderful examples of student empowerment and choice. Units like these would be a positive piece of what works well with this theory. But basing an entire educational experience on this model would be difficult to achieve in real world classroom where certain standards and goals need to be met to keep students on course.

   Interaction:
   Creating a custom fit, personalized educational experience is very much at the heart of this theory. Students learn at their own pace and are sought to be understood as both individuals and as individuals within a group. All are worthy goals of this theory. Of course as educators we want to meet students where they are and see them succeed in their own unique way. Each student comes with their own personality, motivation, and knowledge base and as their teachers we can harness all of those things and aim to create an learning environment that meets the needs of all children.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Ashlynn, I’m digging your practical approach to understanding these theoretical models. I often get too “heady” when considering philosophy. Your outlook and response is, I think, what is designed to be done by the writing of text like this for a class like this. I often wonder how my responses are being translated into my practice, but I can see from your response how you take this information and develop applicable structures.

      I wonder about your views on functionalism. In my view and understanding, our work almost entirely prescribes to functionalist tendencies and only picks and chooses from other theories in the places that functionalism fails. I don’t dispute your understanding, especially when it is more practical and workable than mine, but it seems like you are seeing the three theories that were presented as all operating equally in our work. Is that the case?

      At the end of your summary of conflict (critical) theory, you state that “certain standards and goals need to be met to keep students on course.” Who is imposing this “need.”? Is it to support a community/cultural value? To compete in a global setting? I often wonder about benchmarks in education if the “end result” will be the same come adulthood.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Griffin, I agree with you that functionalism is very much an overarching framework of our education system. Just like in my own teaching I take the very best learning models, concepts, and ideas from different processes and merge them into my own teaching framework. With the typical functional framework in place I do think it is best for student learning to modify the system to fit the needs of the students. They should always remain at the forefront of any decision. And those decisions look differently for schools within a district, state, and nation wide. So I guess what I am saying is yes, functionalism takes precedence in the majority of schooling situations, but the best schools take the very best practices of different philosophies and merge them to fit the needs of their community of learners.

         I feel like classroom teachers feel the pressure of the “standards” much more than I do in a classroom setting that is much more free and less “standardized” (of course, a shout out to our National Core Arts Standards and OASs that help validate what we do as educators). To move up, you have to keep up. Once our students start kindergarten their are standards and benchmarks that are in place for them to meet. Once the train starts, there are not many stops. For many of learners they need extra time and reinforcement to learn concepts. (I know I have needed the same support from time to time) So this is where I like the ideals of interaction where the individual is at the core, not just group growth.

         So the “need” is to help develop thinkers, doers, creators that go beyond the gym/lab that is school. Because once we send students out on their own, it is no longer practice. They/we have to be able to independent and use our knowledge to carve out daily and life choices. My hope is that the we can use the benchmark to guide students to independence instead of being dependent on them.

         LikeLike

   2. I enjoy your remarks and Griffin’s response. As an outsider, I agree with Griffin that it seems that public ed relies mostly on functionalist ideas. The issues seem to be that we have common goal for all students (loosely, not all are expected to go to college, etc., but all are held to a specific standard via requirements for graduation), and the system is so huge/diverse. In a perfect world, functionalism is the absolute best way to streamline success and produce educated students by the millions each year. But the text outlines the main problem with functionalism on page 81: “A functionalist assumes that each group in the system performs its role in predictable ways”. This is where all the problems seem to come in, and the need for the picking and choosing that Griffin mentioned arises. This, and much of the discussion we have had this semester, highlights more and more just how valuable getting an ed degree is for teachers. The complexities in these issues, because the schools are comprised of individuals (of all 3 groups mention by Froehlich), and the school system is so huge. We need people qualified and trained to make these decisions that cater to individuals and also ensure success for the group. I know that alt cert people can educate themselves or find other avenues to prepare for this task, so I mean no disrespect to any in the class that may be alt cert. I only mean to express how much more I value education degrees after taking this class. Hat’s off to you guys for your work!

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Jonathan,

         I enjoy reading how you bring a fresh perspective to these topics week to week. I agree with you that streamlining education through the lense of “functionalism” is the best method overall. It is a starting place. Like I mentioned in my response to to Griffin, I think it is important to start with a strong foundation and then build a philosophy that works for each individual school that then most importantly translates to each unique learner in that school. Schools, students, parents, teachers..are not predictable. We are human. They are human.

         I like what you said about “common goals” and relating those to standards for graduation and then life after school. Those goals hopefully will set students up for whatever life choice they make after High School whether that is college, immediate career choices, study abroad, or vo-tech. Your statement made me further think about a conversation I had with our librarian the other day about helping students understand that college is not the end all, that higher education for some students may not end with a degree. (I know, that seems sacriligious to say as an educator) That as educators our goal is to nurture students who can adapt to their environment and be thinkers and doers in whatever field they choose. Having this mentality in education entails looking beyond the “group” and at the skills and strengths of each student and helping them discover what it is that they can do best.

         LikeLike

6. Funtionalist Theory-This theory of education is very rigid. Everyone must do their jobs and do them correctly because “education is necessary for public survival.” The pros of this method are that the students know exactly what is expected of them at all times and they know what happens when the expectations are not met. The cons to this method are that the students are unable to think creatively. They are always told what and how to think that they never get to experience their learning. There is no experimentation or adventure learning. They learn because they must achieve a specific task.

   Conflict Theory-Conflict theory seems to be nearly the opposite of functionalist theory. In conflict theory the students learn in a non-structured, experimental format exclusively. I think about a couple primary schools in the OKC area that I think might lean more toward this theory with their teaching philosophies. I am talking about the schools that give their students chores and encourage the students to act, however they want because they must learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of their peers. The pros to this method are that the students are able to work well with others, however, without a strict curriculum or clear line of instruction there is no way of know where the students excel or what areas the students need to improve in.

   Interactionist Theory-The interactionist theory simply makes the most sense to me. I believe that this is where most public schools lie with their educational philosophies. The pros to this method are really the pros to both of the previous methods combines. The students are learning in an environment where they know what is expected of them and there is little question as to the expectation placed in front of them. In addition, the students are able to learn at their own pace and learn the exploration and social interactions. The cons to this method is that not every student achieves at a high level in this system Many students fall between the cracks because there is not as much stress on their achievement as there would be in a Functionalist Theory scenario. Furthermore, the students may fall through the cracks because they are not motivated to learn. They have some, but not enough ownership of their education.

   In the Unites States, I believe that we could incorporate more of the Functionalist Theory mentality. We could add some rigor to our course studies to help the student better understand the structure and reason behind their education. This, however, is a fine line to walk on because soon we would lose the interests of the students.

   How do you think the Unites States educational system would look if we incorporated exclusively Funtionalist Theory of exclusively Conflict Theory? Would it look different? How soon would we see a change? What would change about the common workplace?

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Hi Eric,

      Your comment on the interactionist theory that “they have some, but not enough ownership of their education” is absolutely true. We have a private Christian school in my district that I have heard uses or inadvertently use this theory. From what I have been told by parents that send their kids there they have some normal type classes however most of their classes are taken online. Do know that they teach K-12. The students that have transferred into our school are extremely behind their classmates in all of the subjects. I don’t know if this is due to working at their own pace and they where not pushed to achieve higher skill sets or they are lacking a skill to go further and is then categorized as having a learning disability.

      As an educational system for the entire United States, I think it would be wise if we incorporated an exclusive Functionalist theory. There are too many times that lines have been blurred of what the schools roles need to look like that I strongly believe if the roles where clear cut we as professionals could possibly be viewed as professional educators. However, I also see the need of creating a few projects and experiences using the Interactionist theory to help students who are struggling. Tough question!

      LikeLike

      Reply

   2. Hi Eric,

      I enjoyed reading your post and your response to mine! In all honesty, I think that if our country decided to maintain a strict functionalist approach to public education, we would end up sharing more characteristics with that of China or Korea. A one size fits all that can push students to the brink. This is based on information from talking to students from those school systems, documentaries, and readings. Expectations are set extremely high and success is expected. With the culminating 9-hour exam determining their future, many students even meet after school to study. It seems that as we start to move away from standardized testing, a functionalist education would demand it.

      Conflict theory would be very difficult to monitor if enforced nationally. Although, again from documentaries, which of course have an inherent bias, it seems like the school system in Sweden, are much more conflict theory based. The students are involved in setting the pace and deciding the objectives. Unfortunately, because of political issues the school system’s PISA scores have been in decline because of for profit schooling and a decrease in qualified teachers. Ironically, many of the issues I have read about, mirror many of the issues felt by the public school system in the US.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   3. Hey, Eric!

      The thought of the United States exclusively incorporating the Functionalist Theory in regard to education is a bit terrifying to me. As Jamee also mentioned, when it comes to students, one size certainly does not fit all. Students learn in different ways and at different paces. Students that might struggle in school would get left behind. Students that might excel in school may not get the required attention to develop their true potential. I also think standardized testing would certainly increase tenfold. I feel like the Functionalist Theory assumes that all students come from the same background (i.e. socioeconomic status, culture, ethnicity, etc.). We know this is not the case—especially in our nation.

      I certainly agree with you on the Interactionist Theory. I also believe this is where most public schools lie with their educational philosophies. Every school has a certain amount of diversity whether it is socioeconomically, racially, or otherwise. Some schools have much more than others—it definitely varies from district to district and region to region. Regardless of the amount of diversity, the diversity that is must not be ignored, and I believe that the Interactionist Theory does the best job of addressing ALL of the students’ needs.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   4. I think having an exclusively Functionalist Theory would, like Jamee mentioned, certainly relate to characteristics of schools China-Korea. I taught English for a summer in China and my students would tell me about their work load and pressures for tests that determine what they will study after high school. They always had a weight on their shoulders knowing that their life was determined by the tests they would take.
      To counter the stress and functionalism of the classroom, the English organization I taught with encouraged play, group activities, and less “structure”. It was a new way of learning for them and it removed some of the pressures they felt in other classes. Student’s weren’t used to group discussions or talking at all. Looking back, I think this was more of an interactionist approach. My class still had structure while learning English, but they also had more freedom to be themselves in the classroom.
      If our country had a completely Functionalist approach- we would probably see more students excel in math and sciences, but with the cost of experimentation and student’s losing their creativity.

      LikeLike

      Reply

7. In this reading, I found it most interesting to read about how critical theory (perhaps indirectly) influences/benefits those who move towards private education/charter schools. My personal experience has informed my opinion that most people choose private education for reasons outside of pedagogy. And I do not bring this up to because I am a huge proponent of private education. I started college with several friends who received their high school diploma from a private Christian school, and it didn’t take long for all of us to know that they didn’t get the same education that I did and their diploma probably should have been called something else. This is an anecdotal piece of evidence only to point out my concerns for the lack of oversight involved in issuing out these nationally recognized certificates—diplomas—at this one school, so no offence to any who may have had great private school experiences, I know there are great private schools out there. I also voiced my concerns with private education to convince my reader that I wasn’t pushing a hidden agenda when I ask this: why are private schools and universities the only places benefitting from critical theory? The book mentions critical theorists suggesting the “haves” not wanting to upset the natural order of things between themselves and the “have nots” as enough reason for them to prefer maintaining the status quo. Since I don’t teach in public k-12 education, I only have this book and my classmates to inform me on what is happening in schools out there. Are any of you passionate about any concepts that would require radical changes in curriculum, etc.? would trying to implement changes of this nature be possible in your school? Is there a mafia-like faction of people involved in public education who make decisions based on what will keep them comfortably superior to the less education the longest? Who/what would be the road block between your new curriculum and your classroom if you chose to adopt the theories provided by a critical theorist? Even though I am a lowly adjunct professor at both places I teach, I was immediately informed that I would oversee all curriculum decisions in my classes and I have not had one discussion about my choices since starting. Just curious to know if you guys have any thoughts about dynamics that take place between critical theory, curriculum development, administration oversight, etc.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. It’s very interesting to me to hear your experiences and to read your questions–they are often questions that I ask or consider. I’d love to answer a few of them from my experience and perspective.

      Critical theory, as Froehlich asserts, seems to be an paradigm fostered by university constructs, which is where theorizing is “meant” to take place. It’s difficult for radical theories to be implemented in the real world. In private schools, the administration and community has only itself to deal with, not oversight from a district, a state, and a nation. It has to be easier to employ some critical theory concepts in that environment, albeit largely unnecessary!

      I, for one, am interested in what could be called “radical pedagogy.” I’ve found a few radical pedagogy resources online, and from what I understand they are implementation practices for critical theory and feminist principles in classrooms and environments that may or may not engender those principles. I design lessons, procedures, and language in my classroom that could qualify as radical pedagogy, but it is largely misunderstood by my administrators. I imagine in communities and systems that are less homogenous (in race, religious identity, values, language, etc.) than mine, a more critical mindset from the teachers is more supportable, but in my circumstance it is met with a little bit of resistance and misunderstanding. The “mafia-like” faction IS the community and the administrators whose reasons for perpetuating the system may be that it is the only system they know. It’s a cycle of dependencies and trusts, but mostly it is imbalanced in that the teachers–the practitioners–are not trusted to practice, they are subject to pleasing the community, which the administrators are bound to see done. A great big upset of system-designated powers is against human nature’s desire for equilibration.

      If the power of teaching is to “change the world, one student at a time” then I find my efforts affective. But as a practitioner, is it ethical to esteem certain philosophies of education over others?

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Thanks for your response. I recently came face to face with someone running for state representative in my district in Oklahoma that made me a little nervous about the pressures of communities/non-education professionals/etc. on curriculum development in public ed. This person introduced themselves and I gave them a few minutes to make their best case for my vote. They did not know me at all. When I guided the conversation towards education/funding, they informed me that they would push for the state to stop funding all of the arts in all avenues (including education). He insisted that these things should be funded privately, kids were being indoctrinated by a liberal worldview by educators in the arts and the government shouldn’t fund things that are so partisan, and we needed to shift the emphasis to STEM classes that would prepare thousands of high school graduates to enter straight in to the work force. If anyone ever needed evidence that I am a polite person, that day would suffice. My only reply, other than thinking “Oh my God, how can this guy be on the ballot?” was to ask him if the k-12 system would be capable of preparing thousands for the work force if we just shift focus to STEM classes (his response was as if he had never thought about it).
         That story is just to highlight how much trouble we are in if we don’t find a way to secure more autonomy for professionals like yourself. It scares me that if this man wins, he may have more power over curriculum than all of us combined. And honestly, in Oklahoma, people like this can win elections.

         LikeLike

   2. To answer your question regarding critical theory, I know this occurs more at the high school level than at the elementary level- what I teach. The private school I am at is fairly new, but I would say that it is rigorous in subject and material. At the same time there is also the idea that we should also take the time to really understand a subject rather than rush through in order to cover everything right away. I find this challenging, but have implemented it more this year. I will spend several weeks on a topic before moving on and apply it in various ways in order for students to comprehend it. So far, I have noticed students grasping concepts more easily and are applying it to new material we learn.
      Now that I am in the second year where I teach, my insights of the school have developed, and I am starting to create a curriculum that truly fits the core values more closely. We recently had a fine arts meeting with the drama, and art teachers and our department heads shared about how we want our students to be shaped in the long run, but the implementation is up to us as teachers. So I feel more freedom in my curriculum decisions.

      LikeLike

      Reply

8. “Instead, they believe that structural and societal changes are needed that lead to smaller schools, significant curriculum changes. . . and new approaches toward instilling in students a desire to learn for life rather than for school” (page 93).
   I can see how behavior in school is a reaction to life outside the classroom. Students do not see the relevance when they have even greater issues to deal with at home. If this is the case, how do we get our students to connect and help resolve these issues in order to learn? My school aims to transform and shape the individual, and this is something I am continually trying to implement in music.
   “Schools do serve as transmitters of agreed-upon knowledge; they become gatekeepers for social and cultural values” (Page 94).
   I think this idea of schools as gatekeepers for social and cultural values is fundamental in education, yet I think the social and cultural values change depending on demographic, location, and type of school. Schools have a significant impact on the students who are at that particular school, and I think that is why there is so much diversity in our education system about which way is better. Whether it is private, public, or charter- each are aiming to shape the student to become an upstanding citizen in society, but the implementation varies depending on city, neighborhood, school district, etc. Overall we want our students to be functional members of society and I think this can be achieved in a variety of ways. The school I am at strives to create a connection of “truth, goodness, and beauty” in to the curriculum. It is a very specific type of learning environment, but the goal is still to educate and be a gatekeeper for social and cultural values.
   “Simply continuing to transmit old values, as time proven as they may be, does not create the fundamental changes critical pedagogues believe to be needed in society as a whole” (page 94). I feel like this is an issue that school’s are facing today. First, who is in charge of the curriculum and how is it implemented. We are at a critical point in education and like Dr. Ciorba mentioned, the issue of school vouchers will be the next issue of debate. Could “transmitting old values” also mean changing where students choose to be educated?
   “. . .the teacher role becomes one that seeks to bridge school learning and learning outside of school” (page 95).
   This can be one of the greatest challenges in teaching. It is so easy to become focused on getting through the material that we lose sight of what is going on outside of the classroom. I find this in my own classroom because I only interact with each class for 40 minutes a week so it is difficult to know what my student might be going through. And because there is less parent interaction as the music teacher, I often miss significant items that be helpful to know.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Hi Emily,

      I’d like to respond to the last part of your blog post. I have found that my principal is my best resource. Maybe in a private school, with a smaller population and much more interaction with parents, the knowledge that administrators have of the student’s lives is much greater. If ever I have a concern, I can ask the principal “What is going on with… so and so?” Her input is invaluable. Knowing that a student’s parents are divorcing, a parent is sick, or the child is being tested, really has an impact on how and why I teach them. Everything that a student goes through outside of school, in my opinion, is a major factor in their education both because of what they are learning and how they are learning. This is one of the aspects of a small school that I really value. For example, when a parent decides not to test a student for learning differences and I am aware of this situation, I leave behind the strict “Never write in note names or fingerings!” and instead help them to do so… sometimes even color coded. This small success that I can help them achieve means so much more than forcing them to master a skill that may not even be within reach. My classroom is based on two of my favorite sayings “Fair isn’t everyone getting the same thing, it’s everyone getting what they need.” And “The only reason you look into your neighbor’s bowl, is to make sure they have enough.”

      LikeLike

      Reply

9. Functionalism has some exact roles for each individual. Students are “learners, teachers instruct the learners, and administrators supervise the actions of the teachers.” A pro to this is that everyone knows their role in the classroom (or building) and can be kept accountable. A con would be the that it may detour some from going above and beyond what is required of them.

   Conflict theory is a very soft discipline. Education is geared towards the individual and at the pace of the learner. I find it difficult to see many positives on this. Yes, students learn different, and often at difference paces. However, structure and keeping on pace should be taught so when the students become members of society they can contribute.

   Interactionist theory takes from the “two previous viewpoints by arguing that the greatest degree of school effieincey is reach when each learner is given the opportunity to learn at his or her own pace.” The fact that interactionsists take from conflict and functionalism gives students the opportunity to know their role in the educational environment and their clear expectations as well as learning at the individuals own pace. Combining the two theories leaves much more benefit for the entire educational environment.

   LikeLike

   Reply